BPR Interview: John Dennis

John Dennis is the Republican candidate for California’s twelfth Congressional district. Running on a libertarian platform, Dennis will face Major Leader Nancy Pelosi for a third time this November. Dennis conducted this interview with BPR’s Benjamin Koatz. 

Brown Political Review: Why are running for Congress?

John Dennis: Well, to see a better America and a better district.

BPR: What do you think you offer to San Francisco voters that Pelosi doesn’t?

JD: I think offer an understanding of what the appropriate relationship should be between people and between people and their government.

BPR: And how would you describe the gap between how Pelosi views the role of government and your view?

JD: Well I can only speculate based on her actions about how she perceives government, but my guess is that she sees government as a solution to every problem — ones that have been thought of and ones that haven’t. And I see government as, generally speaking, a creator of problems and one that impedes human freedom. So, it’s kind of a stark contrast. She sees government as the answer and I see it as the difficulty.

BPR: On the campaign trail have you been trying to convince people to agree with you on economic issues, or have you been focusing on the issues where your brand of libertarian Republicanism overlaps with progressives?

JD: We’ve been focusing on where my libertarian positions are more beneficial for the district than Nancy Pelosi’s actions and positions. For example, Nancy Pelosi had the opportunity to vote [for the Amash-Conyers Amendment], which was a bill that was voted on about a year ago that would’ve defunded the [National Security Agency], specifically the NSA programs that aren’t compliant with the 4^th Amendment. It lost in a very close vote and Nancy Pelosi voted against defunding the NSA, and she presumably worked behind the scenes to make sure that bill did not pass. I, on the other hand, would’ve voted for it and would’ve worked behind the scenes to make sure that bill did pass, because I would’ve liked to see the NSA programs that spy on Americans defunded. So I think our positions on civil liberties are exemplified in our positions on the NSA. And, by the way, she took that action and defended it publicly after the Snowden revelation.

BPR: Do you feel that libertarianism meshes well with the national Republican party?

JD: Well I think that the libertarian element has always been part of the Republican party. And Reagan described libertarianism as the core conservatism. Barry Goldwater ran on a pretty libertarian platform in 1964. So I think one of the missions of people like me and one of the reasons we run a race like this is to sort of subvert the stereotype of “the Republican” for a tough district like this, and say, “Hey, this is the way we once were, this is the way we think we can be again; and how do you feel about this political approach vs. Nancy Pelosi’s?” We want to give people that choice in San Francisco. Especially in San Francisco, since there’s this whole history of the libertarian.

BPR: And why do you think San Francisco has been the hub for that?

JD: Well I think at the core — the essence — of libertarianism is the Golden Rule, which is just: “Treat people the way you want to be treated.” And in order for human cooperation to happen, people have to adopt that philosophy to some extent. And that cooperation was pretty evident in the founding of this city. People from different areas come to found a new town, coming for all their different reasons, and they had to adopt a sort of “live and let live” attitude, and that’s the essence of libertarianism.

BPR: On your site you say you “ultimately want to separate state and money.” What does that mean?

JD: So yeah, the Federal Reserve is what I’m referring to there. And the Federal Reserve is a cartel created by Congress, with a huge amount of influence by the banking community. And there’s no reason under the sun why we can’t have a free market in money. I think that would be much better. People say, “Give the Federal Reserve credit for salvaging the world economy in the face of, ‘Ah! The disaster of 2008 financial meltdown!’” [They do that] without considering that it was the Federal Reserve at the root cause of the whole financial meltdown in the first place. So anyway, that’s what I mean: I want the market to run money just like I want it to do pretty much everything else.

BPR: So let’s say you win against Nancy Pelosi: How would you work in Congress as part of a party where the majority of members disagree with some of your positions? I think we can agree that your positions on gay marriage and foreign involvement of US troops are more to the left than your colleagues. How would you deal with that?

JD: Well I think starting in 2007 we began a conversation within the party about what’s the appropriate role of America in the world, what’s the appropriate role of the US military, what’s the appropriate way we get involved in these foreign entanglements? I think the party is having a discussion; it’s still ongoing and I think the more reasoned position of noninterventionism is gaining steam. And at the highest stage you see that disagreement being played out in the mainstream media between John McCain and Rand Paul. I think it’s the conservative position: The Right started America’s first noninterventionist movement back in the late 1930’s, and it was [Hyrin Jobs], it was a California senator who had the distinction of voting against the League of Nations and the United Nations. I think there are a lot of directions that this discussion can go, but one of the things that unnerves fiscal conservatives, is, “Why do we still have bases in 110+ countries in the world, including really wealthy ones like Germany and Japan?” It’s an ongoing debate. I don’t think we’ve won that battle yet, but I think we’re making big strides.

The other question about gay marriage: I’ve been labeled the pro-gay marriage person and I don’t totally disagree with that label, but what I’d really rather see is the government get out of the marriage business in total. I don’t even see it as a local issue, frankly, but certainly the federal government has no constitutional authority to get involved in the marriage question. The only reason why they do [get involved] is because of taxes. Because there are 1000+ advantages that people get by getting married that gay couples are not allowed to take advantage of, and I would rather see a much more simplified tax code, and enlist the gay community to help me get the government out of the marriage business. That is the direction I’d rather go.

BPR: Let’s keep talking about your relationship with the Republican Party. Nationally, it carries a stigmatism of views much less nuanced than yours — it’s anti-gay marriage, pro-foreign involvement, etc. — just as the Democrats carry their own national stigmas. Do you think that the national Republican party’s reputation hurts you as you try to run in San Francisco with an “R” next to your name?

JD: Well I think the national Republican party should be thrilled to have virtually any Republican in Congress over Nancy Pelosi. So, I’ve not been impeded. I was the RNC meeting in May and they seemed to be pretty thrilled that I was running against her. And another thing to — keep in mind in 2010 California went to the ‘Top Two’ [voting] system. [Before that] we actually had closed primaries where local Republicans had to choose who was on the ballot in November and I ran against a woman who was the party’s nominee in 2008 against Nancy Pelosi; she had being in the Republican Central Committee for the better part of a decade; she raised — in the period just leading up to the primary — $2 million to win the votes from a universe of only 40,000 potential Republicans. And despite that we won. And we ran against with an uncompromising libertarian position and she attacked us harshly on the positions with which she disagreed. And we still beat her by ten points. So, I think it’s an indication about — San Francisco is a bellwether of Republicanism in general and maybe we’re a little further down the road towards more libertarian-oriented Republican position.

BPR: How does being a Republican affect your efforts to get votes outside of the Republican party? Does the image that the Republican Party has nationally make it hard for you to distance yourself from that?

JD: Absolutely. In areas particularly where Republicans find it tough to compete, the sins of the national party and national brand come down particularly heavily. If you look at what my positions are I think that the Republican brand hurts. On the other hand, if I took these same positions and ran with no party affiliation, I probably wouldn’t be in the top two in November. So the party brand has its pros and its cons.

BPR: So that’s why you decided not to run as a big “L” Libertarian or even an independent? Being a party nominee helps you electorally?

JD: Yeah. We worked hard in the [2010] primary to make sure we got to be on the ballot and we worked hard in this past primary in 2014 to make sure we were going to go all the way, but it’s very difficult for someone to run with no base, with no affiliation, to make it through. I mean, unless, if you had celebrity and you had really high name recognition from some other field. Really, really high name recognition in town, you might be able to defeat the Republican. But aside from that it’d be very difficult.

BPR: Okay so barring that eventuality, what’s one position that was taken by the national party that you think hurts you the most in trying to get independent voters?

JD: What’s the one position where the national brand hurts me in San Francisco?

BPR: Fair point. I guess the most hurtful one then.

JD: Yeah, I’d say probably its relationship with the gay community, the impression of its relationship with the gay community. I mean gays are a big voting bloc in town, and, from what I understand, they tend to turn out and vote in disproportionately high rates compared to other groups. They vote pretty overwhelmingly Democrat and are harsher against Republicans. And despite my positions and personally how I feel, [the Republican stance against same sex marriage is] a huge impediment in that community.

BPR: Okay so now I’m going to shift a little more specifically to the race you’re running right now. Do most of your donations come from out of state?

JD: Yes.

BPR: And do you find that as an issue since you’re supposed to be a representative of the San Francisco area?

JD: Is that a problem? Sure it’s a problem. It’s a plus and a minus. It’s a problem in that not as many local people as you like are donating to you because they think your chances are limited. The upside is that there are a lot of people that run similarly difficult races around the country who have no means whatsoever. So at least this gives me the opportunity to put together some kind of a fight.

BPR: How has Pelosi been as a competitor? I know she hasn’t agreed to a debate, but has she seemed to acknowledge you as a valid competitor in this race? And how —

JD: No, I had a chance meeting with her and in that chance meeting she was very polite and just for the few moment we spent together she was lovely, and when the conversation turned towards having a debate she said, “Goodbye.” You know, “It was a pleasure meeting you,” shook my hand and then turned away. And I think in that one little interaction she was generally pleasant, but she’s been incredibly disrespectful as an opponent. And, it’s one of the reasons why I’m still here. I think a debate would be illuminating to San Franciscans, I think it would be constructive for local discourse on political issues. And I’m not saying I would even win a lot of new votes, but I think someone who’s been in Congress this long  — she hasn’t debated an opponent in 20 years. And I have addressed some substantial issue, that you’ve noted aren’t even the mainstream of my own party and even critical of it on substantial issues. I think it’s disrespectful to not sit down and have some form of a discussion where we air our differences. And then let people move on from there. You can look at races around the country where incumbents are prohibitive favorites and they do that. You can do that in local races here, and some candidates are prohibitive favorites and yet they have the decency and courteousness to offer the courtesy of a debate with their opponent.

BPR: So outside of not debating with you, has she interacted with you, has she done anything that could be considered negative campaigning, has she said anything against you or has it just been, the standard getting out of the Democratic vote, making sure enough Democrats get to the polls to make sure you don’t win?

JD: She doesn’t spend any time doing anything here in town. She spends her time, given the political campaign season going to other districts where Democrats are in tough races and fundraises, where she fundraises for the DNC.

BPR: Let’s talk a bit about your ad against Nancy Pelosi that featured you pouring a bucket of water on “Wicked Witch Pelosi” Wizard of Oz ad. How does that ‘ridiculousness’ factor fit into the rest of your campaign strategy?

JD: I have to tell you, I’d rather not put out those kinds of ads, I’d rather just put out straight ads, but when people aren’t paying attention to really substantial, sometimes parody is the only avenue. So that’s the route that we went. It has its risks, but I think overall it’s worth trying. And I happen to think that Ms. Pelosi personally — she’s not going to debate me — but at least she should have a little bit of discomfort. I ran into her in a pub in Washington — it’s the only time I’ve ever met her — the week that we released that video, and she was pleasant and then I said something to the effect of, “Hey thanks for being a good sport about the video,” which at that point had received 600,000 views, and was run on every [channel] — Bill O’Reilly ran it, Jay Leno included me in his monologue, Chris Matthews, everybody ran it. And so it got a lot of airplay, a lot of eyeballs for that video. And she looked at me like she didn’t know about it. And then not long later we got a copyright infringement complaint from a company that owns the music rights to the Wizard of Oz. They also happen to be big donors to the Democratic Party. So, there’s a little satisfaction in knowing that it got under her skin enough that she actually went and did something about it, presumably.

BPR: Do you feel that she’s disconnected with San Francisco after her time in Congress?

JD: Yeah I do, of course I do, but then again San Franciscans enable her.

BPR: Do you think the reason San Franciscans keep voting for Pelosi is because they want someone with seniority in Washington to be their representative? They want someone from San Francisco to be on these high ranking committees in the House?

JD: Yeah I think that. I think people always vote for what’s in their best interest and they think that having her in that position benefits them somehow, directly. Because she brings in federal money for a road construction project or enables some funding for some startup that couldn’t cut it. So maybe they perceive that she’s helpful to them on that level. Meanwhile, what if Nancy Pelosi and the people who believe what she believes are run out of Congress, and we reduce the size of the federal government and put it in the productive private sector’s hands? I mean how much better would that be? How many more opportunities would that create for people? But they don’t tend to see that. It’s the old problem from Henry Hazlitt of “the seen and the unseen.” It’s easy to see the seen but it’s hard to imagine what might be, if government — the federal government in particular — didn’t have such a heavy hand in the private economy.

BPR: And do you see that problem as intractable to overcome the “seen and unseen” paradox that you describe? Or do you think it’s something that you can effectively overcome through the right messaging and voter education?

JD: No I think it’s a very difficult thing to overcome in people, because people have been conditioned and, frankly, programmed since little kids and some people see past it and others don’t, and they’ve sort of accepted that, at the very least, that Keynesianism works and that the government should have a hand in the economy. So it’s a hard sell, but it’s also one of the reasons why I’ve been so determined, why I’ve stayed in the race, because I want to keep delivering the message and helping as many people as possible see past the propaganda that they’ve been inculcated with since they were little kids.

BPR: So if you had to sum up the reason why you take your time away from your family and your business to do this, what would be the driving force behind trying to unseat Nancy Pelosi?

JD: Well the driving force is — you run to win. And have better voices in representative government. And that’s the really optimistic way of looking at it. So if you’re going to have this “representative government,” put the best voices in there, the ones that understand what the appropriate relationship is between government and people, what government should be doing, and that sort of thing. That’s the first goal. And then there are secondary goals as well: If electoral victory becomes more difficult you look to advance other causes and other issues. So for me those things are growing the liberty wing of the Republican party, showcasing that wing of the party to a hostile electorate, and subverting what they view as the stereotypical Republican. You know, taking singular, particular issues and driving them home so that maybe someone catches on to your train of thought, and then comes to be a longer term supporter rather than a shorter term one. So I guess that’s the didactic part of it, and that has its uses as well.

BPR: Is it hard for you to do this kind of electoral activism against the odds that you’re facing?

JD: Yeah I mean, I’ll always run to win. I’ll never say I’m not going to win. We run to win, we understand what the impediments are and what the realities of the situation are, and we do the best we can, and try and win as many votes and inspire as many people as you can. And in that regard, as a competitive person it’s not the easiest thing, on the election night in 2010 and 2012 to see the results and see what happened the next morning. And that kind of thing, you think it should resonate, but it is what it is. The district is what it is and the election is what is, and you accept and it’s not fun, but hopefully you’re contributing to a greater good.